Disagree at this point, but maybe someday. I think Collinsworth had a lot of Romo in him at that age too. Collinsworth and Aikman are great analysts.

I guess Iím finally ready to admit Iím old. I like Aikman and Collinsworth. And it is because they DONíT sound like a kid in a candy store. Just canít stand all that loud screaming crap over a 3rd and 10 completion in the second quarter...

I guess Iím finally ready to admit Iím old. I like Aikman and Collinsworth. And it is because they DONíT sound like a kid in a candy store. Just canít stand all that loud screaming crap over a 3rd and 10 completion in the second quarter...

I enjoy that Romo is different, and that he comes across as knowing exactly what heís talking about. I like the raw energy...not much filter. Booger is different too, and Iím warming up to him. The first couple games I listened to Witten, I almost had to mute the TV, but he definitely improved as season progressed.

Comparing Romo to Aikman as a player and winner is unfair. Romo was drafted low and was never expected to do much of anything in the NFL. Dude came from the bottom and had a much tougher route. Nevermind the fact that Aikman had players and coaches around him that Romo could only dream about. Was Aikman better? Sure. But it takes a team full of really, really good players and coaches to win anything meaningful. Iím not convinced Romo had that. Maybe he did 1 season when Bryant dropped that pass.

Comparing Romo to Aikman as a player and winner is unfair. Romo was drafted low and was never expected to do much of anything in the NFL. Dude came from the bottom and had a much tougher route. Nevermind the fact that Aikman had players and coaches around him that Romo could only dream about. Was Aikman better? Sure. But it takes a team full of really, really good players and coaches to win anything meaningful. Iím not convinced Romo had that. Maybe he did 1 season when Bryant dropped that pass.

Donít disagree with what you say at all. But Aikman is humble. Romo isnít... that bothers me.

I'm a Cowboys fan that was ready for him to go (more so Garrett but I digress) and I don't see how that has anything to do with his ability as a broadcaster. I like hearing guys that are clearly fans of the game talking about that game.

To be fair to Romo, it is NOT his observations on the game rather his delivery that soooo needs improvement. He tends to be consistently one toned in his approach (sounding like an excited pre-pubescent child) using terms, descriptions and sentences suited for an elementary school level audience.

He may one day become a decent color man / analyst but clearly Romo should NOT be CBS' #1 analyst with Jim Nantz. He should have spent (much) more time working his way up the ranks, gaining broadcast experience on the regional games before being paired with Nantz. I guess in some ways, Romo's quick ascension to the #1 broadcast booth for CBS (with so little experience) reveals one of the fundamental changes in broadcasters these days. It is getting harder to attract and retain a good stable of broadcasters because CBS (like most of the the major networks) no longer has the amount of broadcast sports it once did.

Whatever the explanation is, the art of broadcasting may be at an all time low in terms of quality announcers and analysts.